elien
New Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by elien on Oct 1, 2008 23:58:57 GMT
Science, almost by definition, requires that a phenomenon can be replicated (or successfully predicted, as appropriate) on demand, regardless of the predilection of the investigator. And, never, never should we believe someone's claim in matter X' just because he appears to have been on target re matter X. That is not science. No, that's called faith. Progress demands a mixture of both. Unfortunately we're way out of balance. Or should I say we've completely lost one element. Yet, it's coming back fast. |
|
|
|
Post by Acolyte on Oct 2, 2008 22:16:20 GMT
Science, almost by definition, requires that a phenomenon can be replicated (or successfully predicted, as appropriate) on demand, regardless of the predilection of the investigator. And, never, never should we believe someone's claim in matter X' just because he appears to have been on target re matter X. That is not science.  But if someone says, I think 'ABC' is how things work, then proceeds to do something ('X') other people with non-X theories can't do, you have at least a starting point for a new way of looking at things. Discounting physical results without being able to replicate the results doesn't do anything at all to disprove why 'X' happens - to do that you need not only to be able to duplicate the physical results, but to also show why the theory of someone who can perform 'X' is not a better reflection of reality than that held by those who can't perform 'X' Politely & respectfully *grins* go move 1100 tonnes of rock in large chunks alone and by hand, & then we can talk about whether Leedskalnin knew something we don't. |
|
|
|
Post by Acolyte on Oct 2, 2008 22:25:19 GMT
Science, almost by definition, requires that a phenomenon can be replicated (or successfully predicted, as appropriate) on demand, regardless of the predilection of the investigator. And, never, never should we believe someone's claim in matter X' just because he appears to have been on target re matter X. That is not science. No, that's called faith. Progress demands a mixture of both. Unfortunately we're way out of balance. Or should I say we've completely lost one element. Yet, it's coming back fast. While I have to agree 'faith' is making a comeback, vis-a-vis the rise in fundamentalism, I don't think that the kind of faith that will blend with factual views to form a better way to knowledge. And there is why we need the science view - faith is all very well but lacking evidence, in fact requiring a lack of evidence faith is too easily misplaced and corrupted by a persuasive speaker. Fatih has no built-in checks requiring there be particular results or achievements. Faith allows people to justify, in ways that seem totally alien to anyone not holding the same faith, any action their impulses prompt them to take. But having faith based in science would lead to persistence, to chasing down the result in spite of setbacks. Rupert Sheldrake persisted because he had faith there was more than charlatanry behind some quite weird events. Science told him no, his community told him no, but he persisted and now has results to show his case. Faith is nice, but by itself it doesn't lead to knowledge & the fake knowledge that can be found solely through faith can easily have no basis in anything except the minds of the faithful. To paraphrase, 'have faith but keep your powder dry.' |
|
elien
New Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by elien on Oct 2, 2008 22:36:02 GMT
I agree. Blind faith leads to false hope and eventually failure, as cern has pointed out.
On the other hand, sterile science restricts the talent pool and, vainly, misses chances.
"Loose faith with caution" is the best definition I can hack to express a good balance.
|
|
|
|
Post by kaidaw on Oct 3, 2008 0:45:47 GMT
elien and acolyte,
I suspect we may be watching the two of you using the same words and talking at total cross purposes. So, here is a third view, using the same words in yet again another manner.
I want my science to be hard-nosed, prove-it-to-a-skeptic science. And I expect that my faith will be content that science reveals a small part of the awesomeness of a Great Creator. I do not expect that my faith will reveal science, but that science will reveal a small justification for my faith.
Have faith in my science beliefs? Hardly; that denies the scientific method.
Have faith that faith will reveal true science? Not what [my] God had in mind.
Science is in conflict with faith? Hardly. Man is in conflict with himself.
That means you; that means me.
|
|
elien
New Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by elien on Oct 3, 2008 8:22:20 GMT
elien and acolyte, I suspect we may be watching the two of you using the same words and talking at total cross purposes. So, here is a third view, using the same words in yet again another manner. I want my science to be hard-nosed, prove-it-to-a-skeptic science. And I expect that my faith will be content that science reveals a small part of the awesomeness of a Great Creator. I do not expect that my faith will reveal science, but that science will reveal a small justification for my faith. Have faith in my science beliefs? Hardly; that denies the scientific method. Have faith that faith will reveal true science? Not what [my] God had in mind. Science is in conflict with faith? Hardly. Man is in conflict with himself. That means you; that means me. Faith won't give you the answers but it will help you not lose the track. Math has hard limits(pi). That's why the mayans worshiped the circle. We will never overcome these limits, just vainly pretend we have/will. You must accept the fuzziness of creation to really experience god. |
|
elien
New Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by elien on Oct 3, 2008 9:03:30 GMT
And another thing, in a more or less philosophical note. We live in a chaotic system, that's been talked forever. Distinct and archetypal patterns manifest all over it. Math needs straightness but reality works with curves. The pi is applied everywhere and needs compromises. I feel these points of judgment define the conscious. Skeptics call them random, religions call them spirits. The Jedi call it the force and it flows through us all |
|
|
|
Post by kaidaw on Oct 3, 2008 21:59:24 GMT
The last time I checked, pi could be explored in any level of depth desired by using a simple-minded infinite series, and it is demonstrable with an equally simple mapping algorithm that for every straight line that can be described mathematically, there are an infinite number of curved lines that can be described mathematically.
The rest of the brief philosophical discourse is either gobbledy-gook that is so shallow that it has no substance or so deep and mystical as to defy any but meta-psychic analysis.
|
|
elien
New Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by elien on Oct 3, 2008 22:07:33 GMT
The last time I checked, pi could be explored in any level of depth desired by using a simple-minded infinite series, and it is demonstrable with an equally simple mapping algorithm that for every straight line that can be described mathematically, there are an infinite number of curved lines that can be described mathematically. Ok tell me pi's last digit then Just kidding. Infinity is a limit of math. It defies modelling. It's "gobbledy" allright, but it seems we can measure it somehow. I've seen a project that performs statistics on random measures. It's supposed to have shown enough to gain interest. Faith that is. |
|
|
|
Post by kaidaw on Oct 3, 2008 22:32:34 GMT
"Infinity is a limit of math. It defies modeling."
Perhaps we need to define what "model" means.
"A model is a pattern, plan, representation, or description designed to show the main object or workings of an object, system, or concept."
With this as definition, it seems very easy to model infinitesimal and infinite. Infinitesimal: for every delta greater than zero, there is an epsilon such that delta is greater than epsilon is great than zero. Infinite: the limit value of 1/X as X approaches zero in the manner of epsilon in the prior model. Herewith, both concepts are mathematically modeled.
|
|
elien
New Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by elien on Oct 3, 2008 23:19:55 GMT
"Infinity is a limit of math. It defies modeling." Perhaps we need to define what "model" means. "A model is a pattern, plan, representation, or description designed to show the main object or workings of an object, system, or concept." That's the problem, it contains others by definition yet it cannot be examined, just assumed. These are mathosophics. They sound nice but don't really help our situation. |
|
|
|
Post by kaidaw on Oct 3, 2008 23:59:59 GMT
Well, I'm glad that you think I'm dealing in mathosophics rather than mathomorosities. The problem is that if you can't accept mathematical concepts as real and well-defined, you're gonna have a really hard time with the social sciences like chemistry and nuclear physics.
By the way, everyone knows that the last digit of pie is ate.
|
|
elien
New Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by elien on Oct 4, 2008 0:28:52 GMT
Well, I'm glad that you think I'm dealing in mathosophics rather than mathomorosities. The problem is that if you can't accept mathematical concepts as real and well-defined, you're gonna have a really hard time with the social sciences like chemistry and nuclear physics. By the way, everyone knows that the last digit of pie is ate. But I do. If it can be modelled applicably it's ok with me. Dressing ignorance in mathosophics(CERN) isn't, though. With plain transformers I can get remote lighting at least. I'd love to have a 6Bn budget, I bet I could light the sky. |
|
|
|
Post by Acolyte on Oct 4, 2008 1:55:23 GMT
elien and acolyte, I suspect we may be watching the two of you using the same words and talking at total cross purposes. So, here is a third view, using the same words in yet again another manner. I want my science to be hard-nosed, prove-it-to-a-skeptic science. And I expect that my faith will be content that science reveals a small part of the awesomeness of a Great Creator. I do not expect that my faith will reveal science, but that science will reveal a small justification for my faith. Have faith in my science beliefs? Hardly; that denies the scientific method. Have faith that faith will reveal true science? Not what [my] God had in mind. Science is in conflict with faith? Hardly. Man is in conflict with himself. That means you; that means me. I agree Science has been 'hard-nosed' about facts, but fact is, it fails to come up with facts & we've had to make do with best theory that fits what we can test. As an example, just hwat IS electricity? We proclaim movement of charge as if that exaplins anything. We use it, we modify it, we test for it & our world is based on it but all we have is ideas about wat might carry a charge & seem to know very little about what charge actually is. Ditto magnetism, ditto gravity, ditto strong force and ditto weak force. So if we are going to be truly hard nosed, we need to re-examine our stance on even the basics of our universe. We blithely state that a proton is made up of Quarks, yet Quarks themselves are a mystery. All we've done is move the regression one step further down the scale. A question we cold ask is why so many examples of Life exhibit the use of Fibonacci series in their lives. Humans on recently found this series yet in Nature it's quite common in things as varied as seashells and leaf growth. It becomes a basic question when you track it - how can a small collection of clearly non-intelligent molecules encode a pattern based on a mathematical formula into its growth? From where would Life find this pattern in the first place. Note that some of the earliest varieties of plant life exhibit this, looking at the images, I'd hazard a guess that ammonites use fibonacci in the shell structure. Note it isn't enough to say 'oh, that's how it is!' - hard nose science says there must be a reason, evolution says such structure had to impart an evolutionary advantage. If we posit that it's due to some preferred CaCO 3 structure we'd need to show why other CaCO 3 structures don't show such correspondence. So if we don't actually know what electric charge and magnetic effects are, we are using faith in our science when we think we know what may or may not be occurring with electrical & magnetic effects at solar and galactic levels. For example, I've been unable to find other data about the reported thickening of the depth of the heliopause 'shell' but if that's correct & it relates to why our sun is behaving strangely as well as some of the weird planetary stuff occurring, it could highlight an area where we can learn more. If we close it off by stating 'that's not happening' it is only an imitation of 'hard-nosed' science if we don't also start to doubt our basic certainties that are founded in things for which we have labels but no real explanations. That might seem a bit comlicated but I guess what I am trying to say is sometimes I see boundaries laid down that appear to be arbitrarily defined & the difference between one side of the line and the other depends on just who drew the line. And I'm wondering if anyone has yet managed their 1100 tonnes of rock-moving? ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Acolyte on Oct 4, 2008 1:58:01 GMT
Well, I'm glad that you think I'm dealing in mathosophics rather than mathomorosities. The problem is that if you can't accept mathematical concepts as real and well-defined, you're gonna have a really hard time with the social sciences like chemistry and nuclear physics. By the way, everyone knows that the last digit of pie is ate. 'chemistry and nuclear physics' are SOCIAL sciences? Really? or is this some scisnobbery between fields? |
|
But if someone says, I think 'ABC' is how things work, then proceeds to do something ('X') other people with non-X theories can't do, you have at least a starting point for a new way of looking at things.